"As was widely expected, the Federal Trade Commission announced this morning that it has reached a settlement agreement with Google, bringing the commission's antitrust investigations into the search giant to a close. Two different areas of Google's business were being explored: the way it prioritized search results, and the way that Google had sought injunctions against devices that were thought to have infringed upon standards-essential patents from Motorola." Would have loved to see the FRAND system crumble, though. Let the patent mess explode - to change the system, we need disruption, not appeasement.

Of course, but the discrepancy is simply too large - you, too, have to admit that, right, despite your pro-Apple stance? Or do you think it's beneficial to innovation that rounded corners and crazy software patents can block entire products and lead to billions of dollars in damages, while Apple can just freely take whatever it wants from Samsung's FRAND patents without having to pay a dime - for years now?

I find the potential for patent abuse potentially problematic. (When it is large, financially-rich non-practing entities against smaller organizations less able to defend themselves.) Otherwise, no, I don't find the current Samsung-Apple battle problematic. For the most part, for all its flaws, the patent system "works." (That is, there have not been unfair, significant removals of products from the marketplace for significant time periods for invalid or trivial patents. Awards and punishments have been reasonable, etc. There are more failures for all involved than wins, etc. Yes, stupid patents get issued, needless lawsuits happen, people and companies get nervous for awhile -- but this is true of all legal matters... The reality is there has not been significant disruption of business nor failure of innovation to carry on.) It seems like there is a massive, needless expenditure of resources, but the same can be said of HR benefits, insurance, financial auditing, etc... It seems like a time and money sink but each have their reasons.

No I find nothing unfair about giving greater leeway to non-standard, non-SE patents -- that seems like a perfectly logical tautology. You seem to be stuck in willfully deluding yourself that somehow "standards essential" equals mighty sword to wield against any and all competition rather than it's true meaning: "not denied to anyone because it is deemed essential."

If anything, I sometimes think there is too little protection afforded against the complete, wholesale theft, copying, or riding on the coattails of others.

Yeah, we were never going to agree on this one. You think Samsung stole from Apple, I think that's complete and utter bollocks until someone shows me evidence anyone ever came home with a Samsung phone instead of an iPhone, thinking it was an iPhone.

Luckily, the rest of the world is mostly on my side, save for a questionable jury in the US.

You seem to display a certain level of ignorance about SEP's. No company is forced to submit its patents to a standard. By submitting its patents to a standard, the company is agreeing to limitations on how it can license its patents, specifically on discrimination, in exchange for a guaranteed royalty for anyone who wants to implement the standard. Using SEPs in the manner that Motorola and Samsung have been is detrimental to the aims and is rightly seen as anticompetitive. It's like Rambus, except only worse.

The patents are more useful precisely because they are part of the standard. There a many patents that do not make the cut for any standard which could have been chosen instead. So any company stands to benefit a great deal by having their patents included in a standard. So it is right that they are real and substantial limitations on how these patents can be used in litigation and also in the licensing terms.